Bryce Edwards
Director of the Integrity Institute
Retirement living is big business in New Zealand. The companies that own retirement villages each have annual revenues in the hundreds of millions and manage portfolios of villages valued well over one billion dollars. For example, Ryman Health is valued at about three billion dollars and is one of the biggest companies in New Zealand. And, increasingly, other property developers are expanding into the sector – witness the Winton Property group, quickly building and becoming a significant player in the industry.
With billions of dollars at stake, there are some major government regulatory issues being debated – including in the government’s current review of the Retirement Villages Act 2003, which retirement businesses don’t want changed. This law is highly consequential for how retirement villages operate, especially in detailing how the individual units in retirement villages can be bought and sold.
Protecting business interests from reform
The retirement village business therefore has a lot to protect by retaining the status quo in the Retirement Villages Act. However, in recent years, retirement village residents have started organising, primarily through their representative body, the Retirement Villages Residents Association (RVRC). This community group has been campaigning for a better deal for residents. In recent years they have increasingly voiced residents’ discontent over unfair contracts, slow refunds, and perceived exploitation by operators. Their peak influence was winning the case to get the Retirement Villages Act reviewed.
This has caused a problem for the retirement businesses, who have feared that the government might radically change the rules to favour the residents, thus reducing profits. The industry group representing the businesses, the Retirement Villages Association, therefore brought in the lobbyists to fix the problem.
Capital Government Relations – the lobbying firm owned by Labour’s Neale Jones and, now also, National’s Ben Thomas – has played a crucial part. Their senior lobbyist, Mike Jaspers came in to help in 2023. Jaspers was formerly a lobbyist with a National-aligned firm, Silvereye, and worked as a lobbyist for a bank, and was previously a spin-doctor for Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern as well as Helen Clark’s government (after working in the press gallery for TVNZ).
Setting up an astroturf retirement group
The political fix for the retirement businesses was to set up a new residents advocacy group that they could effectively control. The Retirement Villages Association (RVA) simply created their own rival group that they said would represent the residents to the public and policy makers. Mike Jaspers of the Capital Government Relations lobbying firm was contracted to do the media work, and another highly connected Wellington professional lobbyist, Deborah Hart, was appointed as the chair.
In study of the dark arts of lobbying, this is referred to as astroturfing – a practice wherein corporate interests disguise their lobbying activities behind ostensibly grassroots organisations. Using this model in 2023 was a clever but cynical way of undermining the existing group that represented the retirement residents.
This is particularly seen in the way that the operators chose a name (Retirement Village Residents Council) that is barely indistinguishable from the real group (Retirement Village Residents Association) – only one word different. It’s an effective way of muddying the waters.
This means there are now three representative entities in the retirement villages sector:
- The Retirement Villages Association (RVA) – the business lobby group
- Retirement Village Residents Association (RVRA) – the community group
- Retirement Village Residents Council (RVRC) – the astroturf group
Differences between the community and astroturf residents group
The two resident organisations are entirely different in the way they operate. The real grassroots association is made up of fee-paying members who debate policy and elect their officers. In contrast, the rather fake Retirement Village Residents Council (RVRC) membership is a closed shop, totally selected by Deborah Hart and her funders. It’s a top-down elite process, with no minutes or detailed finances made public, and no ability for residents to hold the representatives to account.
The appointees to the council are, unsurprisingly, rather loyal to the business operators. For example, one of those on the council has actually spent her life working as a manager for the villages. Denise Whitehead has a 32-year retirement village development and management history and, critically, previously sat on the Retirement Villages Association’s executive committee. This means a former RVA executive is now positioned as a representative of residents, ostensibly advocating against the very interests she once formally represented. Her insider knowledge and connections within the RVA are presented as a resource, but they equally represent a profound conflict. Her presence exemplifies the blurred lines and inherent co-option within the RVRC, raising legitimate questions about how vigorously she can or will push against the interests of her former colleagues and the RVA establishment.
None of this means that the RVRC doesn’t progress policies that will benefit the residents, nor that its advocacy is exactly the same as the business owners – on many issues that are at variance. However, in advocating for incremental improvements aligned with residents’ interests, the council carefully avoids antagonising operators or challenging their profit-driven model significantly. Essentially, they are a much more moderate version of the grassroots association, which often acts more like a trade union in its radical pursuit of its members' interests.
For example, on the contentious issue of paying back the capital on housing units when a resident leaves or dies, the village operators would prefer that no laws prescribe how quickly they must do so. The RVRA, however, has been advocating for a strict 28-day repayment requirement to be put into law.
In contrast, the RVRC suggests a middle ground, compromise figure of nine to 12 months. In this way, retirement villages are able to create political space for moderate reforms to occur.
Exposing the astroturf activities
Business journalist Nicholas Pointon has exposed the astroturf activities of the manufactured group for the NBR today. He explains how, although he follows the retirement industry in his business journalism, he had never heard of the RVRC until last week when he suddenly discovered how influential they are, especially because the government consults with them, including at the moment over the important review of the Retirement Villages Act.
You can read his article here: The lobby group muddying the water on retirement reform (paywalled). In this, he explains that he couldn’t get chair Deborah Hart to talk to him about the group, as she’s not allowed to, and instead a media spokesperson is quoted saying that it’s not unusual to have businesses setting up and funding the ‘watchdog’ organisations that are keeping them in check.
I was also interviewed for NBR’s story, and my following two statements are reported:
- “Its establishment is a case study in the ‘dark arts’ of manipulation, deception, and strategic lobbying, reflecting the outside influence wielded by the RVA.”
- “The RVRC effectively provides a platform for policy positions that are more palatable to the industry, making it easier for the government to sidestep the more stringent demands championed by truly independent resident advocates.”
The NBR journalist concludes by saying he “agrees” with me that the RVRC should not be taken seriously by the public or policymakers, as they seem “hopelessly compromised”.
Why this is troubling
The RVRC now has a structural integration into official policy dialogues – the council has quickly become a routine participant in government-industry consultations, often aligning closely with RVA positions. For example, Tama Potaka, the associate housing minister, is currently running the review of the Retirement Villages Act 2003, and he specifically involves the new organisation in consultations, seemingly giving them equal weight to the RVRA.
The review of the act has therefore become something of a tri-partite engagement of the industry lobby group, the astroturf residents group, and the original residents’ association. In this tri-partite arrangement, there are essentially two advocacy groups out of three that are funded by the business owners. And the astroturf RVRC effectively provides a convenient ‘middle ground’ platform for the government to listen to, making it easier for politicians and officials to sidestep the more stringent demands championed by truly independent resident advocates like RVRA.
It’s something of a useful ‘divide and conquer’ strategy. It’s been meticulously engineered and bankrolled by the business operators and lobbyists to be like this. In this sense, RVRC is an unethical construct designed to manage and moderate resident dissent, dilute the influence of authentic advocacy groups, and ultimately serve village operators' political and economic interests.
The NBR and Nicholas Pointon have done a good job in helping expose this cynicism. But now there should be greater scrutiny of the RVRC and the ‘puppet masters’ of the RVA. Similarly, the lobbyists (Mike Jaspers of Capital Government Relations and Deborah Hart) who play central roles in such machinations. Their actions undermine the democratic nature of society, helping make New Zealand’s big businesses both richer and more complacent in the services that they deliver.
Further reading:
Nicholas Pointon (NBR): The lobby group muddying the water on retirement reform (paywalled)
NBR: Audio: The lobby group muddying the water on retirement reform
Lobbying and Influence Register: Retirement Village Residents Council
This article was originally published by the Integrity Institute.
